The New York Times is once again buying into the Bush administration's framing of the international security situation. The press is delighting in the folksiness and nice guy image of a rising Republican politician instead of covering his reactionary policy views. And fact-free, right-wing diatribes are the subject of the chattering classes in DC. Well, at least those provide the makings of funny book reviews, as long as one can forget that such things are written by a prominent advisor to the leading Republican presidential candidate. Knowing that such a person puts time into writing "assertions (that) are bold, sweeping and almost wholly unencumbered by evidence", well, that makes such reviews a touch less funny and rather more disturbing.
UPDATE: For more on the Podhoretz book (and the Giuliani connection) you should check out Hilzoy. Of course you should always check out Hilzoy.
UPDATE: I get what the public editor is saying here about why his paper doesn't call Alberto Gonzalez a liar. But that sort of obfuscating and presenting every side without judgment or clear words that helps the batshit insane like Podhoretz to run free in polite policy-making circles. Is that really a good thing?
Posted by armand at September 9, 2007 08:43 PM | TrackBack | Posted to Politics